Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:49:49 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>
Cc:     loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] LoongArch: Add missing headers
Message-ID: <ZQfzDXc0WRHCUeIq@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230914103445.511285-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CAAhV-H6Q0sirFEDdc1v4BSfDY94eZvJazy0XLKM8V94GMJvQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQNWh2DY319jGbfq@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAAhV-H66LUWHP-eGp6VGvs0F+QD=QJ69uR3_1A3SqH9cyPUPoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZQWCeI6E7rm8Akbt@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAAhV-H6dakVH0a4Mt9MdcY8OO3gdne6rW0Z1kK6YRq9hDLP05w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAAhV-H6dakVH0a4Mt9MdcY8OO3gdne6rW0Z1kK6YRq9hDLP05w@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 08:05:52PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 6:27 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:36:24AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:53 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 11:25:22PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> >
> > > > > Thank you for your patch, can this patch solve the problem below?
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309072237.9zxMv4MZ-lkp@intel.com/T/#u
> > > >
> > > > Nope, this just adds missing includes.
> > > > No functional change, so warnings will still be there.
> > > But I think a patch should solve a problem.
> >
> > No, that problem is static analyser concern, not the compiler nor linker.
> >
> > > If we don't get a build
> > > error or warning without this patch, does that mean the 'missing'
> > > headers are actually included indirectly?
> >
> > I might be missing something, but I do not see any build error in the above message.
> Hmm, then I think I will take the second patch only.

Thanks, but can you shed a light why?

The rule of thumb is to include the headers we are direct users of, we have not
to imply any other inclusions done by others, unless it's kinda same family of
headers (like types.h always includes compiler_types.h). Since in your case
the const.h is included the other two are missing and it's even worse, as I
understand you rely on the specific headers to be included _before_ using this
one in the users.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko